I was thinking the same thing. I mean, we trust the custodial crew not to ship all of our servers to china when they come clean up (some nights only one person). Why can't we trust one guy who is trained for, and hired, to not screw up our system?
In practice our administrators make some bad decisions, but if there is one thing administrators are good with, it's policies. If one were to make some policies: "Don't uninstall anything without unanimous consent from the administrative-trio." I'm sure they could deal (or lose there job). Sure, this won't prevent one schizo administrator from changing the company website to a blog about how the company president is a draconian and our products are mind control devices, but a minimum wage facilities guy could reboot with a CD and do the same thing. Then those changes couldn't be reversed until we had multiple administrators present to put in their passwords before fixing anything under the proposed policies.
Well, you know how casino's call you up years later and tell you "Mr. Perpenso, we are so sorry, you would have won an enormous jackpot the other Day, but a technician had enabled some settings that caused a glitch that denied you that win. Here is the $7,000 you would have won that day." Oh wait, they don't do that. If gamblers are losing more money than expected, no one cares, gamblers just lose and have no right to return and demand re-dos. But if the gamblers win, then an investigation is held and casinos can come collect what they think was won by their own mistakes.
Sure, I don't care why intel is making their chips faster, but I would like to know how much faster and how?
If you have a software project, scheduled for three years of development, can I rely on my average customer to be running computers 2 ^ 1.5 times as fast as they are now, or will multi-core machines proliferate?
As an intel share holder, all I'd need is your question, but as a computer user looking to the future, I'm more interested in the answer to the original question.
Because dogs don't give security theater the same feeling as machines do.
In this forum, everyone knows how bad machines can mess up, but to the layperson, a million dollar machine running sophisticated terrorist detection software operated by a surely well trained man in a deep blue uniform will get the job done. Everyone other passenger owns a dog. Dogs aren't magical to them, but machines: machines are magical and completely above reproach. There are millions of dollars of work from people who are far smarter than you in there. You can trust that will keep you safe.
Remember, it really isn't about safety. We have other people to handle that. TSA is their to handle the illusion of safety.
No one uses the "Esc" key: I like ^[ (ctrl-[) but others like ^c, both which work by default. bigger nerds remap caps lock to escape. I "imap jj " because I often write edit scripts to be piped in.
Oh, you could interpret that the way they do. When I saw: better than reported in trials vs pharmaceuticals and shockingly working as well as the pharmaceuticals tested; I immediately thought: selective reporting of studies on the part of pharmaceutical companies that wanted their medicine to look far better than placebos.
Really, can the researchers imply what they are saying any harder: top of the line medications perform no better than placebos except in their own selected trials against really sucky placebos.
I believe what the article is describing is actually a euphemism for the practice of giving antibiotics as placebos (e.g. antibiotics for viral infections) and is in fact the very bad thing you describe it solving. When a patient comes in and says "Doctor, give me something," the doctor has to find something with minimal side effects, but I have never heard of a pharmacy that carries ic-tactays or similar. I actually have hypochondriac friends and they end up with bottles of general use antibiotics instead of some form of placebo.
Second, I completely disagree with doctors lying to patients. If I come in with no diseases I should not be leaving with a $100 course of placebos. The best thing a doctor can do for a hypochondriac is to tell them what is really wrong if anything, eventually the patient will say to themselves, "Last time I went to the doctor for this it turned out to be nothing, maybe I'll just keep an eye on it. On the other hand when the doctor makes a big emergency out of it and prescribes treatments and diagnostics (often costing $100s), next time they get the most minor irritation they are going to be damn sure to go back now that they know that it will probably take a fortune of effort and medical aid to get rid of whatever imaginary or untreatable illness ails them.
They are not necessarily in trouble for being breached. It appears the breach highlighted the fact that they were not compliant with the law. The customer records should have been encrypted and the extent of data retained seems excessive.
Though, we don't know whether they are in violation of the law.
Agreed. That was my Dad's policy while I was growing up, and it ruined my life! I can't hide porn at all now; my girlfriend always finds it, if only I had stricter parents growing up, I would be so much better off now.
have a clear advantage if they work together properly.
Perfect, assign a different student to each ghost and have an Aesop after the simulation, about how coders are antisocial but really need to corroborate, when 3 ghosts get stuck in the same corner on the occasion they move at all, and the last just can't manage to catch pacman by itself.
Well, if someone paid up without getting the cops involved, you might want to take your money and be happy. $100 bucks is coincidentally about my limit to spend on a computer problem. After 3-4 unsuccessful payments people would probably get sick of it and call the FBI, and you'd lose a money mule with whatever he was holding.
On the other hand if you just give the victims data back (until the next time you infect them), then when victim's friend (who just got the virus from victim) is wondering if he is really gonna get his data back, victim will tell him, "Yeah, just shell out the money, and you get your data back, police reports take too long.
How about adding 'Economic Responsibility, Saving and Budgeting' to our Elementary school's course curriculum?
That is an awesome idea. I recommend high school though so it will be fresh in the kids minds when they graduate and start dealing with this stuff without parental intervention. My economics teacher devoted a third of our course to this and I think I benefited a lot from that.
However, I don't think it can happen. Banks make money when you borrow, businesses make more money when you spend ruthlessly. Unlike the kids, who would have benefited, these parties have money for the "don't brainwash our children!" campaign and associated lobbyists. I think we will continue to sell useless devices to teach kids to not buy so many useless devices.
The headline was bad; doesn't look like there is any sort of list. It looks like you will get a "please don't track me" flag that you can send to sights.
I have no idea how you find companies that ignore that flag. The article didn't seem to cover that at all and I think all this legislation aims to do is give us all a warm fuzzy.
Of course the other side will observe the setting: "By his browsing history we can infer that this guy wants to buy...Oh wait! He's got do not track set! People who set that will want to see adds relating to..."
We could also see sights get angry about it, like how some sights refuse to show content when they see you blocking their adds. For example requesting users turn it off (add an exception or however they implement it) because the sight and partner sites can't work properly while its activated.
Slashdot Mirror
I was thinking the same thing. I mean, we trust the custodial crew not to ship all of our servers to china when they come clean up (some nights only one person). Why can't we trust one guy who is trained for, and hired, to not screw up our system?
In practice our administrators make some bad decisions, but if there is one thing administrators are good with, it's policies. If one were to make some policies: "Don't uninstall anything without unanimous consent from the administrative-trio." I'm sure they could deal (or lose there job). Sure, this won't prevent one schizo administrator from changing the company website to a blog about how the company president is a draconian and our products are mind control devices, but a minimum wage facilities guy could reboot with a CD and do the same thing. Then those changes couldn't be reversed until we had multiple administrators present to put in their passwords before fixing anything under the proposed policies.
Well, you know how casino's call you up years later and tell you "Mr. Perpenso, we are so sorry, you would have won an enormous jackpot the other Day, but a technician had enabled some settings that caused a glitch that denied you that win. Here is the $7,000 you would have won that day." Oh wait, they don't do that. If gamblers are losing more money than expected, no one cares, gamblers just lose and have no right to return and demand re-dos. But if the gamblers win, then an investigation is held and casinos can come collect what they think was won by their own mistakes.
Sure, I don't care why intel is making their chips faster, but I would like to know how much faster and how?
If you have a software project, scheduled for three years of development, can I rely on my average customer to be running computers 2 ^ 1.5 times as fast as they are now, or will multi-core machines proliferate?
As an intel share holder, all I'd need is your question, but as a computer user looking to the future, I'm more interested in the answer to the original question.
I feel like I see twice the rate of stories about this every 18 months or so.
Simple explanation: take away one form of group fun and people will find another.
Ore we could forge onward till we hit gold.
BTW in the UK refusal to provide a password or passkey to decode an encrypted device is punishable with several years in jail.
So, when in the UK, make sure to have easy password recovery questions, because forgetting your passwords could get you years in prison.
Because dogs don't give security theater the same feeling as machines do.
In this forum, everyone knows how bad machines can mess up, but to the layperson, a million dollar machine running sophisticated terrorist detection software operated by a surely well trained man in a deep blue uniform will get the job done. Everyone other passenger owns a dog. Dogs aren't magical to them, but machines: machines are magical and completely above reproach. There are millions of dollars of work from people who are far smarter than you in there. You can trust that will keep you safe.
Remember, it really isn't about safety. We have other people to handle that. TSA is their to handle the illusion of safety.
No one uses the "Esc" key: I like ^[ (ctrl-[) but others like ^c, both which work by default. bigger nerds remap caps lock to escape. I "imap jj " because I often write edit scripts to be piped in.
Oh, you could interpret that the way they do. When I saw: better than reported in trials vs pharmaceuticals and shockingly working as well as the pharmaceuticals tested; I immediately thought: selective reporting of studies on the part of pharmaceutical companies that wanted their medicine to look far better than placebos.
Really, can the researchers imply what they are saying any harder: top of the line medications perform no better than placebos except in their own selected trials against really sucky placebos.
I believe what the article is describing is actually a euphemism for the practice of giving antibiotics as placebos (e.g. antibiotics for viral infections) and is in fact the very bad thing you describe it solving. When a patient comes in and says "Doctor, give me something," the doctor has to find something with minimal side effects, but I have never heard of a pharmacy that carries ic-tactays or similar. I actually have hypochondriac friends and they end up with bottles of general use antibiotics instead of some form of placebo.
Second, I completely disagree with doctors lying to patients. If I come in with no diseases I should not be leaving with a $100 course of placebos. The best thing a doctor can do for a hypochondriac is to tell them what is really wrong if anything, eventually the patient will say to themselves, "Last time I went to the doctor for this it turned out to be nothing, maybe I'll just keep an eye on it. On the other hand when the doctor makes a big emergency out of it and prescribes treatments and diagnostics (often costing $100s), next time they get the most minor irritation they are going to be damn sure to go back now that they know that it will probably take a fortune of effort and medical aid to get rid of whatever imaginary or untreatable illness ails them.
Why should a sightseeing company have anything more than a credit card on file?
Maybe they should make a law against that!
yet. As the investigators are refusing comment.
They are not necessarily in trouble for being breached. It appears the breach highlighted the fact that they were not compliant with the law. The customer records should have been encrypted and the extent of data retained seems excessive.
Though, we don't know whether they are in violation of the law.
Agreed. That was my Dad's policy while I was growing up, and it ruined my life! I can't hide porn at all now; my girlfriend always finds it, if only I had stricter parents growing up, I would be so much better off now.
bizarro product? You know I considered getting one of these?
Yeah the users submitted some ridiculous pics and reviews, but of the _100s_ of customer reviews, many are legitimate.
Why can't the Feds just cut out the middleman at free-porn.gov?
All the carriers get together
In my area, that would be Verizon teaming with uh...Verizon. We better keep those two apart.
To be fair AT&T is around, but their coverage sucks.
have a clear advantage if they work together properly.
Perfect, assign a different student to each ghost and have an Aesop after the simulation, about how coders are antisocial but really need to corroborate, when 3 ghosts get stuck in the same corner on the occasion they move at all, and the last just can't manage to catch pacman by itself.
Well, if someone paid up without getting the cops involved, you might want to take your money and be happy. $100 bucks is coincidentally about my limit to spend on a computer problem. After 3-4 unsuccessful payments people would probably get sick of it and call the FBI, and you'd lose a money mule with whatever he was holding.
On the other hand if you just give the victims data back (until the next time you infect them), then when victim's friend (who just got the virus from victim) is wondering if he is really gonna get his data back, victim will tell him, "Yeah, just shell out the money, and you get your data back, police reports take too long.
How about adding 'Economic Responsibility, Saving and Budgeting' to our Elementary school's course curriculum?
That is an awesome idea. I recommend high school though so it will be fresh in the kids minds when they graduate and start dealing with this stuff without parental intervention. My economics teacher devoted a third of our course to this and I think I benefited a lot from that.
However, I don't think it can happen. Banks make money when you borrow, businesses make more money when you spend ruthlessly. Unlike the kids, who would have benefited, these parties have money for the "don't brainwash our children!" campaign and associated lobbyists. I think we will continue to sell useless devices to teach kids to not buy so many useless devices.
So Kati Perry really does not love me? I need a moment alone.
Well, GP's X's Katy-Perry-impersonation loves you!
Almost as good right?
The headline was bad; doesn't look like there is any sort of list. It looks like you will get a "please don't track me" flag that you can send to sights.
I have no idea how you find companies that ignore that flag. The article didn't seem to cover that at all and I think all this legislation aims to do is give us all a warm fuzzy.
Of course the other side will observe the setting: "By his browsing history we can infer that this guy wants to buy...Oh wait! He's got do not track set! People who set that will want to see adds relating to..."
We could also see sights get angry about it, like how some sights refuse to show content when they see you blocking their adds. For example requesting users turn it off (add an exception or however they implement it) because the sight and partner sites can't work properly while its activated.
I didn't.